Pursuit home

A leadership merry-go-round that won’t stop

Three reasons why Australia is in a cycle of rapidly-changing Prime Ministers

By Dr Mark Triffitt, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne

Share selection to:

What’s wrong with the following prediction?

Bill Shorten/Malcolm Turnbull led their party to a narrow win in the 2016 Federal Election and went on to lead Australia for two terms.

It’s not the first part of the sentence. Among the few certainties remaining on the current political scene is one of them will “win” on July 2.

That is, one will have enough seats to form government (although current opinion polls also point to the possibility of a hung Parliament, which makes even that “certainty” no shoe-in).

The problem is with the statement’s second part. The unspoken, yet very real possibility arising from this election is that whichever leader wins, neither will break Australia’s debilitating cycle of leadership instability.

In fact, in an uncharted political world where the last four Prime Ministerships have not lasted one full term, both are likely to become more fodder for it, whoever wins.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull speaks to a commuter, who had missed an earlier train but thought it was lucky because he then met Mr Turnbull, as they catch a train in Sydney on May 30, 2016. Picture: Tracey Nearmy/AAP

Voters Turning Against Turnbull

Turnbull was elected by his party to be Prime Minister in September 2015 based on his confident assertions he would vanquish the electoral demons of Tony Abbott, whose pugilist style alienated many ordinary Australians as well as key sections of his own party.

Turnbull was warmly welcomed by the public who were keen to believe his assurances he would usher in an era of fresh, positive – and therefore durable period – of national leadership.

But nine months on and the PM’s popularity is steady deflating. The pin in the balloon is that growing public recognition his promise of inspired and inspiring leadership appears hollow.

His strategy for re-election amounts to a series of scare campaigns and three-word Abbott-style slogans (think “jobs and growth”) to sandbag marginal seats and counter a resurgent Labor Party.

So if his government wins on July 2, it is likely to win ugly and narrowly. This will be hardly the decisive electoral mandate his party believed he would give them when they dumped his predecessor.

Growing numbers in the Coalition think if Turnbull cannot stamp his authority in this election campaign the likelihood is he never will. So even if he “wins” the election, his prospects for long-term leadership of the Coalition – and Australia – will be effectively “lost”.

Hence, growing whispers within Coalition ranks of what seemed unthinkable a few short months ago – a return to Tony Abbott even if it is returned to government.

Shorten No Better Off

Bill Shorten, on the other hand, appears to be having a good run in recent weeks. Yet a couple of months ago he was toast in the opinion polls.

Party chatter of him being replaced was never far from the surface. Thanks to some astute campaigning, he now looks more competitive.

But his negative ratings remain high and are long-term, a trend which inevitably ends badly for every political leader. And he remains less trusted than Turnbull.

In sum, most of the opinion polls highlight no deep attachment to Bill Shorten while voters have fallen relatively quickly and potentially irretrievably out of love with Malcolm Turnbull.

Hence, the likely irrelevance of the July 2 election in determining national leadership for the longer term.

Our Underlying Leadership Malaise

What has become clear over the past decade is that success or otherwise for political leaders increasingly turns on a dime. A leader can quickly become ascendant and seem unchallengeable for a period yet become terminally on the nose in the space of six months.

That’s nothing unique to Australia’s democracy.

It is the fraught nature of leadership generally in the current age where public opinion churns at faster and faster rates and has become more confrontational, thanks largely to internet-sped information and the instant scrutiny it brings.

Yet why are these dynamics being translated in Australia’s case into the now regular and abrupt decapitation of leadership? There are potentially three reasons to consider.

First, we have a political system now out of synch with itself, creating deep and potentially unresolvable tensions between leaders, their parties and the public.

Australia’s democracy is a parliamentary system. Leaders are elected not by the people but by their party peers. Leadership authority is beholden, in theory, to the mandate of party and party solidarity.

Yet in this world of truncated media cycles and public expectations of instant, decisive decision-making, voters increasingly see and judge parties on the personal image and skills of their leaders.

Recently, voters have seen Prime Ministers come and go. Picture: Australian Election Commission.

The upshot is that our parliamentary system is increasingly presenting itself as a presidential-style democracy.

This leaves our leaders – particularly at a national level where scrutiny is greatest – caught in between: expected to be individually decisive and innovative, yet follow the party line. In the end, they are often seen as neither strong-minded or collegial, undermining public confidence and ultimately party support.

Yes, but what about other parliamentary democracies like the United Kingdom where leaders have been discarded nowhere nearly as quickly in recent times? The second reason I believe why leadership instability is emerging in Australia is cultural.

We have no history or legacy of political or any other aristocracy. We revel in challenging, nor deferring to authority (some refer to this as the “tall poppy syndrome”).

So when we see a leader in trouble, we’re not likely to give them the benefit of the doubt or a helping hand in perception terms. Instead, we’re much more than likely to bury them, quickly, and in some cases with a barely-disguised sense of glee.

The third reason is precedent. Remember when the Abbott-led Coalition vowed to break the saga of leadership instability started by Rudd and Gillard? Then they added their own chapter by deposing Abbott.

The precedent, now firmly established, makes it easier and more defensible to wield the party knife against Prime Ministers between elections.

So if you think the prospect of four Prime Ministers in five years sounds dysfunctional, maybe we should prepare ourselves for an even faster-spinning merry-go-around of national leaders in the years ahead.

Privacy Statement

The University of Melbourne (University) collects, uses, handles and discloses personal information in accordance with the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic) (Act) and other applicable legislation.

This Privacy Statement relates only to the collection of personal information in relation to the Pursuit Website. Please refer to our Privacy Policy and Privacy Statement for the University of Melbourne Website for information in relation to the broader practices in relation to the collection, use handling and disclosure of personal information by the University.

Definition of Personal Information

“Personal information” is defined under the Act to mean information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database), that is recorded in any form and whether true or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion, but does not include information of a kind to which the Health Records Act 2001(Vic) applies.

Collection of Personal Information by the University in relation to Pursuit

The University may collect, store and handle personal information about you including but not limited to your name and email address for the sole purpose of allowing you to subscribe to Pursuit’s weekly digest of cutting-edge research findings and expert commentary.

Disclosure of Personal Information

The University would seek your prior written consent before using your personal information for any purpose other than that which is described above and before disclosing your personal information to any third party.

Access to Your Personal Information

You can access any personal information the University holds about you by contacting the University’s Privacy Officer at privacy-officer@unimelb.edu.au.